Network layer reqt? [was Re: Transport level multihoming]

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

I think Margaret Wasserman's message captured the requirement. An
IPv6 host running RFC 2460 IPv6, and running TCP and UDP applications, 
including IPv4 applications running over bump-in-the-stack or 
bump-in-the-API, must be able to open *new* TCP and UDP sessions,
regardless of which of the site's IPv6 provider links is up or down.

That is carefully phrased to avoid a requirement for transport
session survivability. It doesn't preclude hosts with changed
stacks and changed apps getting session survivability, of course.

   Brian

Ben Black wrote:
> 
> If there is a requirement that multihoming solutions be restricted to
> the network layer, I'd appreciate a pointer to the spot in the text so
> I can immediately delete it.  Any solution that can be shown to meet
> the requirements should be considered.
> 
> Ben
> 
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 09:03:26AM +0859, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> > Brian;
> >
> > > Regardless of whether transport level multihoming can be
> > > achieved (which is a long running debate, and I agree
> > > that SCTP makes it a bit more plausible), the operational
> > > requirement for IP level multihoming isn't going to go away
> > > at least for the next 10 or 15 years, so we have to solve it.
> >
> > The operational multihoming requirement of IP level operators is
> > for IP level multihoming, of course.
> >
> > However, the source of the requirement is subscribers.
> >
> > Without subscriber requirement, there is NO operational
> > requirement.
> >
> >                                               Masataka Ohta

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Program Director, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment for IBM at http://www.iCAIR.org 
Board Chairman, Internet Society http://www.isoc.org